Senior Sermon by Donna Hall, Class of 2004 from the Diocese of Southeast Florida, on October 16, 2003, in Christ Chapel

May the words of my mouth and the meditations of our hearts be acceptable to you, O
Lord.

I will always remember the first time I encountered conflict between what I wanted and what I had the power to accomplish. For me, this conflict occurred when I was 8 years old, and growing up on a farm where I was responsible for the goats. In order to herd and care for the goats, I had a dog that worked with me. This dog was my companion and helper. He was my prized possession.

I also had a close neighbor, Pud, who was a poor sharecropper. Pud was my friend. With great patience, he listened to my view of the world, and shared his very different view with me. Through spending time with Pud and his wife, I realized that I was privileged. I had plenty of store bought food to eat every day -- food that was bought with money. Pud and his family, on the other hand, had to hunt and grow their own food using a hunting dog, an old wooden plow and a mule. This was not easy.

My conflict regarding power occurred when Pud's hunting dog died of old age. Recognizing Pud's need to have a new hunting dog in order to put meat on the table, I went to my parents, encouraging them to buy Pud a new dog. My parents attempted to explain about Pud's unwillingness to take charity. I attempted to circumvent this "charity" concern by informing my parents that we could say we "found" a dog, and wanted to give it to Pud. This earned me a lecture about honesty. Over the next several days, I attempted to get my parents to "loan" Pud the money, or to have Pud do some work for us in order to "earn" the money to buy another hunting dog. All this got me was more lectures on treating others and their beliefs with dignity and respect. Finally, with great trepidation, I realized that I held the answer to Pud's problem within in my own possessions. I could give my dog, my faithful work companion, to him. Oh, but the cost was high. It meant giving up something very dear and important to me in order to help my neighbor. It meant giving up something I considered an extension of myself.

The rich man, in today's gospel reading, is also living in conflict -- a conflict between following God in the manner he always has or going one step further. Going one step further requires him to give up the thing that makes him who he is -- his wealth. In the rich man's world, wealth determined his status and position in society. Having wealth gives him choices, and that rich man has to make a choice. Would he choose to maintain the status quo of his world, or would he choose a more radical step -- to give up his possessions and his identity formed from those possessions to help those in need? I can't help but wonder, did the rich man, attempt to find ways around this call to action -- this call that required giving up something near and dear?

The scripture reading today gives us clues about the interaction between Jesus and the rich man. First, the rich man is an outsider in Mark that doesn't understand Jesus' purpose in ushering in God's reign --hence the exchange between he and Jesus regarding "good teacher or Rabbi" and God alone being good. Usually in Mark, this role of misunderstanding is reserved for the disciples.

Secondly, Jesus looks at the rich man with love as the rich man is truly trying to follow God's ways in his life. The rich man is doing what the "good" people of his time did. He is following the commandments - honoring his parents, not committing adultery, not defrauding or not paying the poor their wages for the work they completed. The rich man has been living a "righteous" life. His wealth is proof . In his world, his wealth is a blessing from God. From the rich man's perspective, why should he answer Jesus' call to radical action -- a call that requires rearranging his life -- releasing his hold on his "security" that reinforces the status quo of his world?

Yet, the rich man leaves troubled by the decision he made. Why? Does he sense there is more to actively following Jesus than relying on "security" ? Is he disappointed with himself since he is unable to accept the radical nature of Jesus' call -- the call to sell all that he has -- his security , and give it to the poor?

In my own conflict, did I keep my dog and maintain the status quo of my world or did I take the radical step of giving my prized possession -- a part of me -- to my neighbor in need? I chose to give my dog to my neighbor. However, before you give me accolades, please know I did not make my decision with the intent of participating fully in God's Kingdom. My decision was made on the basis of a calculated risk. I was fairly sure my parents would buy me another dog. You see, I had security -- parents who had never failed to meet my needs.

As a seminary community, we know about giving up our wealth and security, right? We've given up jobs and homes to pursue the call to follow Christ. We've taken the necessary action to further our Christian vocation. We've radically changed the status quo of our lives in order to participate more fully in the Kingdom of God. Have we? Or, is it possible that without realizing it, we have taken a calculated risk counting on our "security", our "safety nets", whatever they may be to protect us? Have we really taken radical action, and overturned the status quo of our world? Or, is our safety net holding us up until we "regain" our rightful place after leaving ETSS?

Jesus tells his disciples, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone rich to enter the Kingdom of God." The disciples grapple to understand Jesus' comment about the rich. It is different from their world view. Jesus tells them -- "For humans it is impossible, but all things are possible for God". "ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE FOR GOD" -- what good news for seekers of security like the rich man.

AMEN